After I wrote this post I sent a mail to the leader of the pilot survey project at Rutgers University expressing my concern for the recommendation of SES as a possible instrument and explained how SES exclude a subset of male victims of rape. I also outlined Mary P Koss’ stance that it’s not appropriate to call it rape if a man is made to penetrate a woman without his consent.

I got a reply within the same day stating that the pilot project at Rutgers would not use the SES, but rather the questionnaire used by CSA – The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study by Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher and Martin.
She went on to write that The Rutgers’ pilot survey will use the following language: “Sexual assault” and “sexual violence” refer to a range of behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient and include remarks about physical appearance, persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient, threats of force to get someone to engage in sexual behavior, as well as unwanted touching and unwanted oral, anal or vaginal penetration or attempted penetration. These behaviors could be initiated by someone known or unknown to the recipient, including someone they are in a relationship with.

She stated that:

While we do not distinguish between being made to penetrate someone versus being penetrated against one’s wishes, these are both included in the broader definition we use.

I wrote back that even though I was relieved they weren’t going to use Koss’ SES I feared that the stereotype of the penetrator being the perpetrator and the one being penetrated being the victim might skew their results.

She wrote back again thanking me for the input, saying that my concerns were appreciated and valid. She also asked my permission to include my messages in their feedback about the pilot study to the White house and the Office on Violence against Women (OVW). I gave permission to do so.

My impression is that she took my comments and criticism very seriously.

When time permits I’ll put up a post with screenshots of the mails.

My original post follows below:

Recently someone on my feed retweeted a reference to a study by Jennifer Freyd on sexual violence at the University of Oregon. I decided to spend some time looking into it and what I found deeply disturbed me.

I’ll start from the beginning:

In one of the presentations of the study its authors Jennifer J. Freyd, Marina N. Rosenthal and Carly Parnitzke Smith says this about their survey:

Designed to assess student experiences of sexual assault and harassment victimization, perpetration, and institutional behaviors, as well as student attitudes, educational engagement, and well‐being

The project is similar to other studies we have completed in our laboratory and overlaps with the survey recently recommended by the White House.

Now that’s interesting. I wasn’t aware that there had been any concrete recommendations from the White House on sexual violence surveys.

When I try to find the survey recommended by the White House I come across this paragraph in the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault recommendations published in April 2014:

1. Identifying the Problem: Campus Climate Surveys

The first step in solving a problem is to name it and know the extent of it – and a campus climate survey is the best way to do that. We are providing schools with a toolkit to conduct a survey – and we urge schools to show they’re serious about the problem by conducting the survey next year. The Justice Department, too, will partner with Rutgers University’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children to pilot, evaluate and further refine the survey – and at the end of this trial period, we will explore legislative or administrative options to require schools to conduct a survey in 2016.

The study by Freyd et al found a pretty high prevalence of female rape and a very low prevalence of male rape (0.0 – 0.8%). A likely reason for the low number of male rape victims becomes clear when we look at the methodology used:

Do not be fooled by the “Modified for gender neutral language” assertion. This revised SES is still adhering to Mary P Koss’ belief that it’s inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. The link I’ve provided to the methodology Freyd used includes all the questions asked in the survey. Student were asked whether they had someone penetrate their vagina or anus without their consent and they were asked whether they had received or been made to give oral sex without their consent.

There are no questions which would capture a victim made to penetrate their perpetrator’s vagina or anus without the victim’s consent.

My Bad Feeling Is Confirmed

One could argue that even though this survey completely ignored a subset of male rape victims it was just one survey done on one university. The White House Task Force is aiming at making Campus Climate Surveys mandatory for all colleges and universities during 2016. So this isn’t just about one college. Surely the other colleges and universities will not exclude male victims from their surveys?

In peer‐reviewed research, the most widely used and most researched tool is Koss’ Sexual Experiences Survey. It can be used to measure victimization and perpetration. It includes questions across the spectrum of sexual violence.

That description is telling and it is disturbing. What does the assertion that SES includes questions across the spectrum of sexual violence imply? The answer is that anything it doesn’t ask about is not on the spectrum of sexual violence. Hence being made to penetrate someone’s vagina or anus is not even considered sexual violence according to the SES.

A Hope Quickly Squashed

The White House Task Force does however go on to deliver a small hope since they in the next bullet point on page 17 also mentions the NISVS methodology:

The 2010 CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey used similar behaviorally specific questions that were developed in consultation with a panel of experts. This measure is similar to Koss’ and very comprehensive. It was developed to be administered in an interview format.

However, when I read further along on the toolkit document I notice that chapter two include “promising practice examples for a campus climate survey“. The introduction to that chapter states:

The questions below are examples that represent the best available promising practices in climate surveys. […] Some of the sample climate questions have not been validated, and this survey as a whole has not been validated. The Department of Justice is currently working toward validating the survey as a whole to produce an evidence ‐ based survey.

The following is what the Department of Justice is currently working towards validating as a mandatory campus climate survey (page 23:)

This section asks about nonconsensual or unwanted sexual contact you may have experienced. When you are asked about whether something happened since [TIMEFRAME], please think about what has happened since [TIMEFRAME]. The person with whom you had the unwanted sexual contact could have been a stranger or someone you know, such as a family member or someone you were dating or going out with. These questions ask about five types of unwanted sexual contact:

a. forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

b. oral sex (someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your genitals or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals)

c. sexual intercourse (someone’s penis being put in your vagina)

d. anal sex (someone’s penis being put in your anus)

e. sexual penetration with a finger or object (someone putting their finger or an object like a bottle or a candle in your vagina or anus

Note how they define sexual intercourse above. Apparently men can’t have sexual intercourse. That is ridiculous, but it is a good example of the contortion needed to not include all types of male victims. They have taken this list more or less straight from the SES and the faint hope I had in this being done properly when they mentioned the NISVS is promptly squashed.

Last Ray Of Hope?

Rutger University is officially piloting the campus climate survey and I hope they will do the due dilligence to make sure that male victims of sexual violence aren’t erased by the choice of survey instruments. The results they’ve released so far from this process are inconclusive in regards to what instruments they will use and whether the survey will exclude any male victims. The name of th center at Rutgers University which will lead the survey efforts on campus does not do much to assuage me: Center on Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC).

It would be a huge step backwards for the issue of male rape if surveys being done nationwide on all campuses ends up erasing many male victims.

I guess my last ray of real hope is you.

That you’ll help spread the call that the campus climate surveys shouldn’t use the SES methodology, but rather use instruments which will include all victims of sexual violence. That you, by passing this call forward your network and asking them to pass it on, will succeed in making the call being heard and heeded by The White House Task Force, Department of Justice and Rutgers University Center on Violence Against Women and Children.

The bottom line here folks is…American gender-feminists are going to keep perverting American law enforcement, keep pushing more and more “manufactured statistics Alliances: into law enforcement, until we reach the point where hetero-relationships become such a “legal liability” for guys…that they are forced to go MGTOW…just to not be harassed by a perverse law enforcement.

This whole issue has gone beyond the pale. They certainly have mastered the use of language. Its quite impressive to see.

They haven’t yet “validated” the survey questions. Yeah… I’m not even sure you can “validate” the results of a survey, but I have a general idea what the word “validate” means and there is no such thing as “validating a survey question”. What does that even mean ? Well, of course, beyond the idea that the question be worded such that it solicits the responses that the survey writers WANT. I.e. there is a horrific epidemic of rape. Someone looked at you funny ? Rape.

Seriously. Just look at what is included in the updated portion. Now unwanted comments about your appearance falls under the auspices of “sexual violence”. Yeah, sorry, no it doesn’t.

Where is any question about, say “Did you think or know the sexual contact was unwanted at the time, or only now in the light of day for the purposes of this survey and the need to perpetuate a fake “war on women” narrative ?”

And, really, for the purposes of these foolish “sexual climate” surveys, you don’t even have to get to the point of considering a man raped by a woman when he ends up penetrating her when he didn’t consent to it. Because the vast majority of what the feminists want categorized as “sexual violence” is any sexual contact when your abiity to GIVE consent is somehow compromised, THAT counts as well. Oddly, however, there is no thought given to the fact that when a woman engages in sexual contact with her ability to give consent compromised, it is almost universally with a man who has similarly compromised his ability to “give consent”. The only reason one is grouped under “sexual violence” and the other is not is the generally held belief among hardcore feminists that ANY sexual contact between a man and woman is effectively “sexual violence”.

The CSA study asked male and female respondents different questions. Female respondents were only asked about their victimization, not their perpetration. Male questions were also “tailored to be gender-appropriate”, but what that means is never explained and the CSA questionnaire doesn’t appear to have been made publicly available. Although Rutger’s seems to have it, so there must be some way to get it.

We still can infer from the CSA study results that the questions were probably indirect and misleading, since (much like Koss’ infamous Ms. Report) the vast majority of the study’s reported “rape” victims, claimed they were not actually victims of rape when asked directly, even when the term “rape” was strictly defined (see page 5-20).

Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering.